On March 25, 2025, the District Court in Poznań issued a definitive ruling in the high-profile case surrounding the death of Ewa Tylman, acquitting Adam Z. of the charge of manslaughter with possible intent. The court also determined there were no grounds to convict him for failing to assist Tylman, whose body was discovered months after her disappearance in the Warta River.
This verdict marks the third trial for Adam Z., who has faced similar charges in the past. The prosecutor's office expressed dissatisfaction with the ruling, pledging to appeal. Łukasz Wawrzyniak, spokesperson for the District Prosecutor's Office in Poznań, emphasized, “We disagree with this. We regret that the court fully embraced the defense's arguments put forward during the trial.”
Tylman disappeared in November 2015, and her body was recovered several months later. The question of how she died remains unanswered due to significant decomposition, which hampered forensic analysis.
During the trial, Adam Z. did not testify, resulting in his prior statements to investigators being read out in court. In these statements, he had mentioned witnessing Tylman fall into the water and admitted he was in shock, failing to assist her and running away. According to Adam Z., “I don’t remember what might have happened.”
Ewa Tylman was well-known to Adam Z., who described her as a close friend who helped him significantly at work. “Of course, I miss her. She helped me a lot in my work, so it's natural,” he expressed.
The series of court proceedings surrounding Tylman's case has been convoluted. Adam Z. was previously acquitted twice by the district court of the charge of possible intent to kill. However, those acquittals were overturned by the appellate court, which rendered the case void and mandated further examinations.
The defense repeatedly highlighted the absence of conclusive evidence linking Adam Z. to Tylman's death. Defense lawyer Ireneusz Adamczak labeled the prosecutor's efforts a “crushing defeat,” arguing that from the outset, the case lacked indisputable evidence. He noted, “The prosecutor's office has faced numerous challenges and lacks definitive proof.”
The prosecutor's office sought a legal reclassification of Adam Z.'s actions to a failure to provide assistance, suggesting a sentence of three years in prison and a monetary penalty of PLN 50,000 for victim support as part of their closing statements. “The evidence in the case allows us only to confirm that both parties were at the park, and we have proof that the victim remained there while the accused left the area,” the judge stated during his argument.
The implication of negligence, which could have resulted in a minimum conviction, was firmly countered by Adam Z.’s defense team. Adamczak has reiterated the importance of the accused's right to defense, stating that Adam Z.'s statements made during earlier investigations lacked corroboration.
The ruling has brought mixed reactions from various stakeholders. Adam Z. has indicated that while he has managed to rebuild his life, he still feels the lingering effects of the accusations made against him. “Most of the comments I receive on social media are still negative,” he said, though he acknowledged that many also express support.
The court's decision reflects broader societal reflections on the case, exacerbated by the public's enduring fascination with tragic stories framed by unconfirmed allegations.
According to the prosecutor's office, Adam Z. potentially faced life imprisonment for manslaughter; however, he has maintained his innocence throughout the legal proceedings. The legal limbo has highlighted systemic flaws in the judicial process, leading to public and legal discourse about justice and accountability.
The case of Ewa Tylman has captivated the Polish audience since its inception, with significant media coverage and public interest. Local media have emphasized the procedural controversies and complexities around evidence and testimonies over the years.
Whether this latest acquittal will stand remains to be seen, as the prosecutor's office has announced plans to appeal the verdict. This ongoing saga continues to evoke strong emotions and calls for justice in a case filled with unanswered questions.
As Adam Z. strives to move beyond the accusations levied against him, he reflects on the gravity of the situation, contemplating the impact of the events on all parties involved. “I can only try to understand the father of Ewa Tylman; I have no kids and won't have any, but I can imagine his pain and frustration,” Adam Z. stated, highlighting the human element in a deeply concerning legal narrative.
The conclusion to this tragic saga appears far from definitive, raising concerns about accountability and the quest for truth in the legal system.
